Negative responses to Trump's comments in Helsinki

[Albion]

Imagine if Obama did this. The Y'all-Queda would be up in arms; literally, probably.

Obama did do this...and there was no such reaction.

 

[PeachyKeane]

President Trump was not the one who made the remark about Hell.

Well, ya got me there. Here are some other people who did not say that: Jason Sudeikis, Samuel L. Jackson, Shirley Temple, M. Night Shaymalan, Gandhi, Trent Reznor, Neil Armstrong, Kevin Feige, Peter Gabriel, Justin Trudeau, and Jesus.

 

[Fantine]

I was somewhat surprised to see my trio of legislators, whose response to Trump's commands to jump would usually be "how high," condemn what was said at the conference. All said that the House and Senate Intelligence committees agreed with the Justice Department that Russua interfered with the election and that Russia was an enemy nation.

 

[Belk]

Our "justice system" at the higher levels are a joke and a mess, and no one knows it better than Donald Trump. At that level we are little better than a Banana Republic. Again. He knows this. However, there is no doubt that Russia has interfered in our elections and will probably try to do so again. He should have shown more caution with his words, but I'm sick to death of everyone acting like the operators in DC are fair brokers. They are not and have not been for heaven knows how long.

Much of this outrage is outrage for its sake alone, and the populace is shutting it down. They're sick of it. I can see this on social media--"what, Russia AGAIN?" Boy who cried wolf territory.

How have you come by this insight into the higher levels of our justice system?

 

[szechuan]

lol. Treasonous Trump is really at it again.

 

[NotreDame]

Well this is probably only the first of several meetings that Putin and Trump will be having.

Kind of knew even before the meeting that no matter what Trump said he was going to get blasted from all sides. His true supporters are starting to get a little kick out of that. What can you do when someone puts you down before you even open your mouth? Only what's right in your heart and what's best for the country (in the long run.) There is a long-term picture that some cannot bring into focus.

M-Bob

This isn’t about “no matter what” but about what he did say, which is very troublesome.

 

[NotreDame]

I keep seeing that term, but what did he say that was actually treasonous?

Treasonous is a stretch.

 

[whatbogsends]

Yes, intelligence agencies here have been so....honest. As we see.

As we see.

Comparatively to Trump, yes. Absolutely.

 

[NotreDame]

treason

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Trusting Putin over our own intelligence agencies could fall under number 2.

That’s a stretch on the basis of these facts.

 

[Goonie]

Obama did do this...and there was no such reaction.

Source.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Don't you get it? We're supposed to take any statements coming from US intelligence at face value because... 'Murica!

Who knew the day would come that liberals would have such a high view of the CIA?

When given the choice of taking the word of US Intelligence or the word of the KGB on whether or not the KGB did something illegal, I think the party that does not stand accused of doing something illegal might be the more trustworthy one. Taking the word of Putin/the KGB on this is the equivalent of believing your 3-year-old when he denies getting into the cookie jar with chocolate and crumbs smeared all over his face.

 

[SummerMadness]

When given the choice of taking the word of US Intelligence or the word of the KGB on whether or not the KGB did something illegal, I think the party that does not stand accused of doing something illegal might be the more trustworthy one. Taking the word of Putin/the KGB on this is the equivalent of believing your 3-year-old when he denies getting into the cookie jar with chocolate and crumbs smeared all over his face.

 

[NotreDame]

Number 3 comes into play for the same reason. He has betrayed confidence in his own government and its intelligence agencies.

Treason? Really? That’s an irrational stretch.

 

[Hammster]

That’s a stretch on the basis of these facts.

Could be. I never said otherwise.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

That’s a stretch on the basis of these facts.

Reminds me of that toy back in the old days -- Stretch Armstrong.
M-Bob

 

[wing2000]

Obama did do this...and there was no such reaction.

Did what Albion?

 

[Albion]

This isn’t about “no matter what” but about what he did say, which is very troublesome.

No, any reasonable person knows that the NeverTrump crowd was going to go ballistic over what happened in Helsinki no matter what it was that happened.

They even prepared the way for it by claiming, with as much somberness as could be mustered, that that the world would end if the president so much as talked to Putin. With that ground thus prepared, they were set to be outraged no matter what was done in Helsinki.

 

[wing2000]

Treason? Really? That’s an irrational stretch.

Agreed.

However, I have yet to find a word that adequately describes what Trump did today though.....he basically stuck a knife in any one who has ever worked a Soviet / Russian intelligence mission.

 

[NotreDame]

Could be. I never said otherwise.

No, you didn’t, but you ostensibly desire to ride the fence, it “could be” treason but treason “could be” a stretch.

Of course, what’s intriguing is you posted Trump’s specific behavior “could be” treason, but in the same post didn’t illuminate the treason “could be” a stretch. So, you were suggesting a “could be” treason for the sake of illuminating what “could be?”

Trump’s specific conduct you allege “could be” treason isn’t treason.

“I have president Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this. I don't see any reason why it would be," President Trump said...”So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

Those statements do not constitute as treason, no “could be” treason is rationally possible in regards to those statements. Those comments do not constitute as a violation of “allegiance” to the U.S., like Vigol and Mitchell who engaged in armed conflict against the U.S. in the Whiskey Rebellion, or others engaged in armed rebellion, like the Confederate leaders and generals.

This is not to suggest no statements could be ever be treason, but those remarks do not constitute as a violation of allegiance. Those remarks are not attempts to overthrow the government, they do not constitute as taking up arms against the government, spying for a foreign government, sharing government secrets with a foreign government, etcetera.

I use these examples to contrast with Trump’s mere statements above to illuminate the night and day difference between them. Trump’s statements aren’t a violation of “allegiance.”

Of course, the constitutional meaning of treason is also inapplicable.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

[Hammster]

No, you didn’t, but you ostensibly desire to ride the fence, it “could be” treason but treason “could be” a stretch.

Where did you get the idea that this was my view?